wikialityfandomcom-20200214-history
Wikiality talk:Admin Board
This page is meant for Admins to discuss Policy and other issues. Please check Wikiality:Admin Board at the bottom for current projects, and add your own ideas, too. * * Discuss Blocks * * Archive New Comment Anonymous Editing Apparently anonymous editing has been reinstated. Please be careful when blocking/banning IP addresses. Double-check our "policy", make adjustments, changes as needed.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC) :Yes, I noticed this too. Perhaps they put through the long-standing order to reinstate anonymous editing when they did the site upgrade? I thought we might look at creating a variation on the "welcome" template for anon editors specifically, maybe with text something along the lines of this? It seems like a good idea to encourage people to make user accounts, especially if they are making multiple edits. Plus, it might be the case that some of our regular users are editing anonymously without realizing it (not knowing that they're not logged in b/c they weren't prompted), and the "welcome" hello might trigger that realization. Thoughts?? --thisniss 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ::I made this, just in case: Template:Hello2. Adjust as necessary, use if useful? --thisniss 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ::We can use your IP user hello for IP users.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Helpfulness I feel like maybe we should merge the and Main Page/Help "help tubes". I think it's a little confusing to have two different "Help" links coming off the front page, basically giving the same kinds of information, but looking just slightly different. I prefer the "style" of the tabby one Main Page/Help (because it looks more like the other tabs), but didn't know if we wanted to use anything from the older version? I'm just wondering... --thisniss 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC) New Forums In the interests of promoting intra-site communication, I would like to introduce you to our shiny new Wikiality.com Forums. These may not get much use, but I figured it couldn't hurt to have more outlets for open conversations, especially as these will be editable by all users. I'm hoping that I've got all the components right and that everything works now, but please let me know if you see any bugs, have suggestions, want chocolates, etc. --thisniss 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Upgrade It's a big day, huh? It looks like we've also been upgraded to the new skins! (whoo-hoo). Seems like the site default is still monobook - I'm not sure I would have realized if my default weren't set for slate. Maybe the rest of you have already seen this, but I thought I would note it in case everyone else is set for monobook and it's not obvious somehow. New skins excite me. --thisniss 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) :I hope we don't get moved over to the new skins, they look horrible. Plus, they are too stylized for a serious encyclopedia such as ours. Did anyone ask us if we wanted the change?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ::All of the wikia wikis are in the process of switching over. It's not a question of being asked - it's part of the upgrade. Unlike almost every other wikia, our default still seems to be set as monobook for the site as a whole. Every user still has the individual option of choosing to select whichever skin s/he might prefer, as s/he selects in the user preferences settings. That's it. The upgrade itself was not an optional or requested thing, not about us specifically, no particular persecution involved. Because we are one of the older and larger wikias, they just did ours later than most of the others. I commented on it because I thought some people might be interested to know - and because the new skins have some features we might find useful, like the ability to give individual pages ratings, and more. As far as the aesthetics, that's up to each user to determine. --thisniss 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC) :That's odd, usually they post something on the left bar to alert us to new things. Also, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but aesthetics ain't. Different isn't better and the new skins restrict how we present ourselves.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ::Okay, I changed the title line because what I was trying to call attention to was more the upgrade and the possibility for individual users to try out the new skins (and attendant features). The point that I was trying to convey via the admin board is that our site has upgraded to 1.10, we get new widgits, and some people who want to can do things like play around with skins. I happened to notice this when I signed on today, and thought people might be interested to know it, too. That's all, no worries. --thisniss 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC) :::I think what TeddyBeer is trying to convey is that we have an official look, a presence, a dignified to maintain as a dedicated encyclopedia of the greatest nation and news''man'' ever. No pussy skins allowed.--Pro-Lick 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) And what I have been trying to convey is that this will not change in any "official" sense, but "TeddyBeer" keeps editing my postings on this board. "Officially," I was told when I became an Admin that it was generally considered untruthy and uncool to jump on another Admin's work without asking them first, unless there was an indicator (e.g., "please edit") that I could/should do so. I don't know when that changed, but I think we all deserve the respect of having at least our posted comments left alone. It is not fucking cool to edit what someone else says - if you have a problem with it, say so. Otherwise, QFT. Using the summary bar to justify your bitchslap does not count as "open, honest" conversation; it's just passive aggressive. As far as why my comments where edited, I really do not understand. WatchTV has brought information between this Board and Wikia/Splarka numerous times in similar situations, without anyone feeling the need to edit his comments. Generally, it makes more sense for an individual to ask a question than for the entire population of a wiki to do so. So what's the big deal? I don't see why this should generate this kind of reaction, and I don't understand or appreciate having my comment edited twice. Whatever your personal feelings about me, any particular situation, or whatever, this is simply not a good precedent to set if you want to generate a real sense of community or demonstrate that you care about communication here. Please don't do that again.--thisniss 13:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC) New Logo I have an idea for a new logo: * an eagle with ** either Stephen's face or a cockeyed feather (ear) like Stephen ** red white and blue balls. We really need to change the logo.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Disclaimer I reposted the front page disclaimer that said we are not affiliated with Stephen, The Colbert Report or Comedy Central. Please be careful when editing the main pages that you don't remove it. Thank you.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :Thank you for doing this! I have seen so many references lately to "Stephen Colbert's wiki". heh. These don't all reflect when we did/didn't have the disclaimer up - I think it's more that people really do think we are "Stephen's" (high praise). But it's good for us to be as clear as possible, cya. --thisniss 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Should we Create some kind of survey? Speaking of polls and question-asking, should we create some kind of voluntary survey to gauge how people found us, what they like, want to change, etc?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) :I've started a page here, which we can use, or if no one likes the idea, we can delete.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC) ::Excellent idea. Should we add links to the Suggestions and Complaints page from here? Or maybe even make those two pages subpages of the "Feedback" page? --thisniss 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Daily Poll Blocked? I blocked the daily poll page to prevent altering questions, which negate all previous votes. It seems the poll function is very specific, and if you change any part of a question, the wiki considers it a new question and zeros out all the votes. I posted a disclaimer of sorts on the talk page, where people are encouraged to add any suggested poll questions. Please adjust as you see fit.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Look Who's Praising Us Now This Catholic Father says in his blog that we are "basically" a 21st Century Devil's Dictionary. The Baby Jesus must be shitting himself with glee. I know I am. --thisniss 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :Holy crap! Do you know what this means!? People believe Stephen has something to do with this website! "Colbert's Wikiality.com"! LOL--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC) ::That seems to be a pretty commonly held misunderstanding, at least from some of the stuff I've seen. Check out this one, there's an extended "debate" about "Colbert's position". It's kinda freaky. (But also funny, yeah). --thisniss 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :::Check out the video too. It's linked in the about me section at the right under the title "A button-down intro." I won't tell you the twist at the end! heh --MC Esteban™ 04:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Suggestion for Promoting Article from Sound Advice to Features Voting Currently the procedure to get an article on the features voting page, the page must be on Sound Advice for at least a week. Technically all that is needed for the move to the voting page is the passage of time. I would like to know if we should try to get an admin to "sponsor" a page to be moved to voting or to allow a move only if there is not an admin who objects to the move (I'm watching CSPAN right now). Any comments are welcome.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :I think we should remove the requirement that pages must go on Sound Advice before being nommed for features, as I think it is inhibiting people from nominating their stuff. I think we should try to suggest as much as possible that people put up things to sound advice, but right now I feel like we are creating an "elite" group with an widening gap between admins and tacitly approved users and everyone else. :So, in answer to your question, I don't like the idea of "sponsorship", as I thnik this adds another level of control. In fact, as I stated, I would prefer to cut back on the power and requirements of Sound Advice if possible. If we eliminated the reqs, and someone put a page we personally felt was not ready, we could guide them towards sound advice and encourage them to nom again. --MC Esteban™ 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::I forgot to add incorporating this.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :::I like the idea in theory, and think it is really funny, but I personally dont want to be some kind of "grader", as it all feels very arbitrary to me. I also don't want to force people to write in a certain direction, as I feel it should be up to them. With sound advice being a requirement before becoming a feature, I think that our suggestions actually become implied commands, which I think is just wrong. Folks should be able to ask for suggestions if they want them, not required to. Also, I feel with suggestions that many can and should be done by the person doing the suggesting. This is a wiki after all, and should be collaborative. :::I know that I myself would be reluctant to put myself up for a grading. Being voted no on in a feature or whatever, while it may seem harsh, I think is actually less harsh than sound advice and the grading scale in general. I also think everyone should be voting, yes or no. If people can't take it, thats too bad. --MC Esteban™ 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC) ::::I am also in favor of removing the "Sound Advice" requirement. I think we should go to a voluntary system. If people put stuff up for noms and get a bunch of "no's" and "not yet's", then it might encourage them to use "Sound Advice" more, but I don't think it should be required. Not only does it keep people from nomming their own stuff, but it makes me feel reluctant to nom good stuff I come across (not being sure it has met the requirements, etc.). I think this is probably true more broadly - people probably don't feel they can nominate other people's work, which I would like to encourage more of. ::::I also think that there are just too few of the "senior it-getters" pulled in too many directions right now, and "Sound Advice" just doesn't have the kind of weight behind it that it needs to really work. Personally, I would rather see people writing, and helping others out on a more informal, collaborative basis, then feeling like people are pulled away from generating their own stuff by the "assignment" of providing feedback on Sound Advice. This might change in the future when we have a more predictable editorship, or if there is someone who particularly wants to head this up. Like MC Esteban™, though, I want to make sure that whoever is doing the reviewing makes clear that these are always "suggestions", not requirements for editors to follow. I think that could be particularly intimidating for new folks, who want to "get it right" and may not realize that they can be truthy and still have different individual styles.--thisniss 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ::Well, with the anonymous editing we will be getting more traffic (good and bad) which means we will have more housekeeping work that can't be ignored. ::I sorta understand Esteban's suggestion to remove the "mandatoryness" of Sound Advice, even though we won't be using the grading diamond thing I love so very, very much. (sniff) ::We do have to make sure new people know it's there in case they need it. And to follow through if someone does use it. Posting on the site is much better overall than personal correspondence in email between editors, especially if it concerns how to improve content. Posting it can show how a page has evolved and will be helpful in the long run because other new editors will also see it and can learn from it. ::As far as writing more...of course people will be writing more! Or didn't you hear! Stephen has basically given us a two week vacation! Everyone has so many things they want to add to the site, but as always, communication is key. We can't ignore the requests of a new person asking for advice in favor of our own selfish, selfish projects! ::So, we have to balance helping others with completing our own dear pets, all the while communicating and following through. ::Remember, getting the truthiness right is more important than all the sound and fury of a dancing chipmunk.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Elections/4th "Hubs" Hey yall. I have been playing around in the sandbox with a couple of different versions of cribbed hub/portal pages that I thought we might want to alter for our own purposes to use as central nodes for our Election 2008 related pages and/or with our upcoming 4th of July stuff (depending on whether we foresee having multiple pages that we'd like to offer easy, central access to w/ the latter). At any rate, feel free to go over and look at what's there, play around, make adjustments, make suggestions, make it work, whatever. We can talk about the ideas here, and play with formats on another page as necessary. Thanks for looking! --thisniss 16:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC) :That's all wonderful, but maybe we ought to be keep an eye out for some of the basic stuff too. The EDers who are out in force now that school is out and have posted many pages which need your attention! :We cannot forget to do the less glamorous things too.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) ::Also, I had to move your election stuff out of the sandbox so that people could use it without feeling they are ruining something. As always, please post these types of pages as pages under construction. Thank you.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) :: The stuff has been moved "Election 2008/Misc" (edit:page has since been deleted).--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC) :::Well, I guess great minds do think alike, because I was moving it at the same time you were!! (And for the same reason, I'm sure). Imagine my surprise when I ran into an "edit conflict" in the sandbox while trying to clear it out so the person working on the "Countdown to the Apocalypse" clock would have more room. :::At any rate, I had already moved the hubs stuff to Election 2008/Sandbox before I saw any of this, and have done a little more tweaking there. So we can either delete the "Election 2008/Misc" page or keep it for other Election 2008-related "miscellaneous" stuff. Thanks again for all the help!!--thisniss 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ::I did delete the "Election 2008/Misc" page I created at 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC), so that the "Sandbox" page you created at 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC) can be used instead. If anyone needs to create another "misc" page they can.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) If you would prefer that we use the /Misc subpage title, that would be fine with me (although it does seem that the /Sandbox has the added benefit of conveying "under construction" or "test"). I am sorry that our moves overlapped, especially given that mine took longer than yours. As I mentioned above, I did not just copy and paste the hub page from the Sandbox, but continued to work on it after copying (as well as doing a few other things, like exploring the option of an "election countdown" clock, based on having seen the other edit in the sandbox. I could not ultimately make that work for now, but it took some time to try it). It is also my habit to use "preview" a lot before "saving" a page, especially on a page with heavy formatting. I did not know that you were also moving the page, and I did not mean to cause any inconvenience for you. I had just seen that User:Toadaron had been working in the sandbox so I thought I would move the hub page stuff to clear it out from there. Evidently you were thinking something similar, because I copied everything from the sandbox, set up the new page, played around with it, etc., and eventually saved it. I kept the sandbox window open the whole time on "edit," and came back to find an "edit conflict" - my first indication that anyone else was "involved" in any way. Again, I apologize if my also having created a "duplicate" page caused any difficulty for you, as my intention was simply to clear the space for others. Had I realized that you were doing this, too, I could have saved us both some work! --thisniss 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) :It's no big deal. I just don't feel the sandbox should be used as a "place-setter" type of page, when we can just make it, tag it "under construction", block it if we want to and delete it if the idea doesn't work. :New people may see something on the sandbox, they might be discouraged from erasing it.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Customizing our "bullets" Here is some code we can use to customize our different bullet points on the site, if we would like to: /* Change bullet markers to eggs */ ul { list-style-image: url(URL of bullet image); } ul li:hover { list-style-image: url(URL of hover bullet image); } .portlet ul { list-style-image: url(URL of bullet image in sidebar); } .portlet ul li:hover { list-style-image: url(URL of hover bullet image in sidebar); } background here We could use this to change the default little blue dots on the sidebar and in articles to balls, or stars, or whatever more appropriate patriotic, American image we feel would represent Wikiality.com and Our Glorious Stephen better. They don't have to be the same, and we can even have different "hover" images to make it look like they change color, etc. What do you all feel about trying this out? We just have to pick our bullet images and add this to the Common.css. --thisniss 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Covert Counter-terrorist Actions Is wikiality better than wikipedia? Is the daily poll better than wis.dm? :--Pro-Lick 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 7,000 Articles Before July 4th As America celebrates her birthday, we are fast approaching the 7,000 page mark. As of 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC), we have 6,699. Great work, everyone!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC) :Our heroiness is second only to Stephen.--Pro-Lick 08:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ::Let's have a de-stub-athon and increase the overall level of truthiness. I know a lot of articles get the stub treatment that deserve to be full-fledged, counted articles. --El Payo 08:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC) :::This is an idea that Thisniss came up with a long, long, long time ago. :::And it is still a good idea. We just need to find a way to make it go from idea to action.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ::::De-stubbing didn't seem to influence the article count. I did a test last night. --El Payo 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) :::Oh crap. Maybe I misunderstood the page!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ::The "job queue" length is 224 right now, which is quite long. This makes me wonder if perhaps El Payo's test hasn't shown its full results yet. I'm not entirely sure how you tested, but if you changed a template category, for example, it takes a long time for that to show - usually around 24 hours (more or less depending on various factors). ::I do know that in the past, moving articles to and from the "stubs" category has changed our article count. For example, we recently moved all the "bad pages" (marked as On Notice, Vanity, Dead To Me, etc.) into the "stubs" category specifically so they wouldn't count in our total page count, and it did decrease our total article count by about 250 pages. Again, I don't know how to account for the anomaly, and it is certainly possible that my understanding of the statistics is incorrect. But I have heard the "stubs" complaint from other people in other wikia as well. Perhaps we should ask? Another way to test might be to create a few new "stubs" pages and see if those increase the article count? --thisniss 01:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC) I just tried de-stubbing a few and saw the random end part of our "millions" number shift but no shift in our total pages numbers. I don't know - maybe the stubs do count, or maybe it counts page length (in which case, we would be hurt more by short pages than the "stub" tag?) But I'd say let's wait for the job queue to settle, and ask someone who knows more than me (i.e., almost anyone) in the meantime. --thisniss 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC) :::Regardless, we should do something with the stubs. It is a large category, and it may stimulate activity as well as ideas.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC) ::::It seems as though we will fall short of 7,000 pages by 4th of July...but, we'll be close. Please check your emails for any news regarding this!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :::Awww, we've only got 110 articles to go! We can make it. :) --thisniss 20:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Main Page Tabs Splarka split the Main Page into sub-pages so we can edit the pages for tabs individually. Hopefully, this will make it easier to adjust parts without having to work through a long sheet for the whole of all the information contained in each tab to edit any one piece. And we could potentially add or change the tabs in the future, etc. There are links if you hit "edit" on Main Page, (scroll down to the bottom where the "templates" are and you will see them). Here are the links to the sub-pages, too: * Main Page/Wikiality.com * Main Page/Features * Main Page/News * Main Page/Help * Main Page/External Tubes There are notes for this on the "main" Main Page. Key, I think: "If it breaks, bug Splarka." :) --thisniss 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC) :It looks very impressive. If only we could have shiny letters and glassy, mirror like tabs.--Pro-Lick 08:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)